Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 146 posts

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#11

Post by mikrl »

afavour wrote: post #4

It won’t happen, but if it did the CEOs have no one but themselves to blame. They’re hyping up their products as being able to destroy the human race then are somehow surprised at the level of anti-AI sentiment out there in the world.

I honestly don’t know what anyone expected given all the labs started building self-driving malware at about the same time.

I remember lots of people talking about running agents in VMs or on whole dedicated machines, yet barely anyone talking about how they were using mundane OS access controls.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#12

Post by adastra22 »

gruez wrote: post #9
int32_64 wrote: post #6

Aaron Swartz was facing up to 35 years for wire fraud and hacking for swiping some JSTOR documents, and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics.

>and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics. For good reason. Courts have so far ruled AI training is fair use, and it doesn't look likely to be overturned by the supreme court. Theres also the matter of some labs pirating books to get training data, which is illegal (they lost in civil court), but it's unclear whether that can be criminally prosecuted.

Hacking other companies is illegal as far as I understand.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#13

Post by WalterBright »

Khan has never been employed by a business nor ever run a business. She's never had to meet a payroll, nor prepared a P&L statement. Her entire career has been spent in research, academia, public policy, and government oversight.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#14

Post by gruez »

adastra22 wrote: post #12
gruez wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics. For good reason. Courts have so far ruled AI training is fair use, and it doesn't look likely to be overturned by the supreme court. Theres also the matter of some labs pirating books to get training data, which is illegal (they lost in civil court), but it's unclear whether that can be criminally prosecuted.

Hacking other companies is illegal as far as I understand.

1. OP specifically mentioned "IP violating antics", not hacking

2. All the hacking legislation (and criminal law in general) require proving intent, which so far as we can tell didn't exist in those cases. At best you can try some "reckless" or "negligent" angle, but that would a novel legal argument and would be risky to prosecute

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#15

Post by adestefan »

WalterBright wrote: post #13

Khan has never been employed by a business nor ever run a business. She's never had to meet a payroll, nor prepared a P&L statement. Her entire career has been spent in research, academia, public policy, and government oversight.

So what.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#16

Post by collingreen »

WalterBright wrote: post #13

Khan has never been employed by a business nor ever run a business. She's never had to meet a payroll, nor prepared a P&L statement. Her entire career has been spent in research, academia, public policy, and government oversight.

And therefore shouldn't be allowed to have opinions on crime and antitrust? Is that your argument?

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#17

Post by collingreen »

homeonthemtn wrote: post #5
fwlr wrote: post #3

The passage banning “unfair competition” is utterly marvellous: A trader may not, by pursuing a dishonest practice, force his competitors to choose between its adoption or the loss of their trade. A method of competition [is ‘unfair’ when it] casts upon one's competitors the burden of the loss of business unless they will descend to a practice which they are under a powerful moral compulsion not to adopt, even though…

^ further evidence that the problem with democracy isn't democracy, it's that we lack politicians willing to enforce it

Isn't that just the human problem for every possible form of government?

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#18

Post by int3 »

collingreen wrote: post #16
WalterBright wrote: post #13

Khan has never been employed by a business nor ever run a business. She's never had to meet a payroll, nor prepared a P&L statement. Her entire career has been spent in research, academia, public policy, and government oversight.

And therefore shouldn't be allowed to have opinions on crime and antitrust? Is that your argument?

duh? why would you want someone with no experience making decisions?

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#19

Post by moribvndvs »

WalterBright wrote: post #13

Khan has never been employed by a business nor ever run a business. She's never had to meet a payroll, nor prepared a P&L statement. Her entire career has been spent in research, academia, public policy, and government oversight.

So is the solution to only nominate corporate bagmen who have a perverse incentive?

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#20

Post by tptacek »

int32_64 wrote: post #6

Aaron Swartz was facing up to 35 years for wire fraud and hacking for swiping some JSTOR documents, and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics.

It's not at all relevant to this thread, but no he wasn't. At their worst, prosecutors were threatening to push for 7 years; the guideline sentence for Swartz's offense, were he to take it to trial and lose, would likely have been under the level allowing for straight probation (go to a sentencing calculator and plug the values in); writing after his death, his own lawyer stated that had he gone to trial and lost he was unlikely to face a custodial sentence at all.

We get this "35 year" number from adding up all the counts he faced, taking their maximum sentence. That's just not how sentencing works. Like charges group, and you're sentenced according to the most severe charge.

People cite these numbers in part because DOJ posts them in their press releases. DOJ is in these instances lying. When we amplify those lies, we're doing their work for them.

Post reply on HN